CA has to wait to vote for Arnie S.

[Pattybar]

Hello,

New news... the recall in CA has been delayed. The court ruled that, since the election came up so fast, many voters would have to use outdated equipment (hanging chads, anybody??) and, as such the recall should be postponed...

Patty

[pdano]

Important to note that this isn't a final decision yet: the court stayed implementation until the Supreme Court chooses whether to accept the case (and, if so, until a decision is reached.)

Still, though, great news for Davis.

Dan

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by tutakai
Also, it will be fun to note the deafening silence from the people who cried bloody murder when a court intervened to stop an election based on punch card flaws in 2000. :) Just goes to show that the desired outcome shapes the interpretation of the law on both sides....

Stopping a recount is a little bit different than delaying an election. In fact, the former is a result of a failure to do the latter.

But: of course desired outcome shapes interpretation on all sides. It couldn't be any other way. What objective meaning does the law really have?

IS

PS: Ha ha. :D

[shea_d]

I was actually surprised that the ACLU objection to the election was actually validated. I didn't think it was going to work.

[thedancingbear]

Probably my favorite part is the extensive citation of Bush v. Gore. Ah, the law of unexpected consequences, how I have missed you!

[Spo1369]

actually as i read this decision, yes i am that much of a dork I downloaded the decision, I hate to say this because of whom I affiliate myself with, but Bush v. Gore in 2000 set a precident for this case. I am however more a student of voting and like to see equality in voting. And the 9th Circuit is correct. What is at the crux of this issue, is the 15th amendment, which is gives equal protection to minorities and their rights to vote. If you look at the case, and the counties where the old punchcard ballots would have been used, they carry roughly 44% of the eligible electorate, and they also have a large minority makeup. So what was argued, and rightly so, was that in theory more votes could be disqualified in those counties than in the other counties. And with the statistical implications of that, you see the chances for dis-infranchised voters, is high. Not to also mention you are dealing with 2 different standards of voting, which I am 100% sure is unconstitutional, again the other main point in the Bush v. Gore decision, the argument on standards. Now I am not the biggest fan of Gov Davis, and I know the people have spoken by asking for this recall, but alas should we not try to get this democracy thing right, and protect those whom are voting and make sure everyone whom votes, gets it counted at the same standard. I think the 9th Circuit got it right this time. (Jed you might wanna save this post, cause it is a landmark for me)
Shaun

[Spo1369]

Originally posted by tutakai
While you're right about Bush v Gore the wild card here lies in the wierd clause in the Bush v Gore decision that explicitly says that the decision may not be used as a precedent.

Alas, I poured over the Bush v. Gore case, again which is on my computer. I did not see where the Court expressly stated that their decision on that matter could not be used as precident for future cases. But no matter what, the court provided case law. Now what actually was meant by that, is the Supreme Court, should a similar case appear before it, will not use the Bush v Gore decision in the new case, but a lower court such as the 9th Circuit may infact use that decision. They stated that with forsight realizing that more cases would come in front of them with this same issue, they could not use that ruling.

[thedancingbear]

Originally posted by DB8 MissingLink
So if they're really concerned about fairness, what they should be doing is driving around getting people to register absentee.

That seems practical.

Headline: "THREE-JUDGE PANEL SEEN GOING DOOR TO DOOR DISTRIBUTING VOTER REGISTRATION CARDS"

IS

[Spo1369]

I agree with Jason, if the ACLU tried to get the recall removed because the 9th Circuit postponed the election, for its reasons, and the ruling was upheld. It would not, and could not, just allow the election to be killed. Could not because that would eat and rip a hole in the fundamental system we have employed in this nation...

[JChang]

Judicial oversight applies in all instances of voting, including state elections. The recall is still subject to the same federal authority as all other elections.

on punchcards in particular:
http://www.berkeley.edu/news/media/releases/2003/09/15_recall.shtml
At the press conference, Brady first demonstrated how a punch card ballot works, using a Votomatic, one of the original punch-card voting systems. [...] With punch-card systems like the Votomatic and Pollstar, voters use cards pre-scored with small, perforated rectangles — the infamous "chads." Voters insert the card into the voting device with the candidates' names, and use a stylus to punch out the chad for their preferred candidates. However, nowhere on the ballot do the candidates' names appear, making it impossible for voters to check their work, said Brady. And unlike electronic voting systems, which resemble ATMs, or optical scan systems that many people have used for standardized tests, there "is nothing in everyday life like the punch card," he said.

Brady pointed to a chart showing the "residual vote rate" in California for the 2000 election, explaining that punch cards result in a residual vote rate of between 2 and 2.5 percent, versus less than 1 percent for optical scan, touch-screen, and Datavote systems. "Residual votes" refers to undervotes — for example, cases in which the chad has not been punched all the way through, as well as overvotes — cases in which the voter has mistakenly punched the box for one candidate and "corrected" his or her mistake by later punching the box for another. Neither undervotes nor overvotes are counted, said Brady.

Since six California counties that account for 44 percent of voters registered in 2000 use the antiquated punch-card system, that residual vote rate could translate into roughly 44,000 lost votes for the October 7 election — five times as many votes as were in dispute in Florida during the 2000 Presidential election, Brady noted.

[boredguy8]

In Bush v Gore, Bush was trying to stop a 2nd recount (after Bush won on election night and then won the first recount). The basis of the Bush argument was twofold.

First of all, the Gore team was hancounting ballots only in select counties which they knew to be highly democratic. The other counties were not hand-recounting. Secondly, these counties used a faulty procedure because they machine separated the votes into three piles:

1. Those votes that the machine registered a clear vote
2. Those votes that the machine recognized an "overvote" (More than one candidate selected)
3. Those votes that the machine recognized an "undervote" (No candidate selected.)

They counted the clear votes and tossed the overvotes, but then they looked at each undervote to see if there was a hanging chad or a dimpled chad or whatnot and then counted those too. This is an inconsistency however, and was recognized by the US Supreme Court, because they did not go back through the clear votes in order to see whether or not those had dimpled chads as well for a second candidate. If they did, in order to be consistent, those votes would also have to be tossed due to the fact that they would then be overvotes.

The California Supreme Court is citing Bush v Gore as a precedent, but they do not correlate whatsoever. In Florida, the voters of the remaining counties along with those voters who followed instructions in the counties that were being recalled were being disenfranchised because there were differing standards for counting a vote. In this election, there are no differing standards. There are differing machines, but by each type of machine the standard is equal. If you use a computerized ballot, the standards are equal across the board, and if you use a hand-punched ballot, then they are equal across the board too. You just have to follow the ballot instructions.

--Joey

[JChang]

The California Supreme Court is citing Bush v Gore as a precedent, but they do not correlate whatsoever. In Florida, the voters of the remaining counties along with those voters who followed instructions in the counties that were being recalled were being disenfranchised because there were differing standards for counting a vote. In this election, there are no differing standards. There are differing machines, but by each type of machine the standard is equal. If you use a computerized ballot, the standards are equal across the board, and if you use a hand-punched ballot, then they are equal across the board too. You just have to follow the ballot instructions.

The existence of these differing machines results in votes being counted differently. In addition, nearly half of the state's voters can double-check their ballots, while the other half cannot. This election would not be "equal across the board" when the board is the entire electorate of California. "Equal across the board" means that voters in Los Angeles county should have a method of counting votes as accurate as those in San Francsico County when the populations of both areas are voting on the same statewide issues.

The basis of Bush v. Gore was an equal protection issue of all votes being counted the same way. The court reasoned that different methods of counting used in the hand recount meant that votes were being counted differently in different parts of the state. California had already acted to prevent this problem, as a state court had already ruled that punchcard ballots were a violation of equal protection. This decision rules that no election can take place until punchcard machines with a significantly higher rate of error are replaced.

[Spo1369]

Originally posted by JChang
The basis of Bush v. Gore was an equal protection issue of all votes being counted the same way.
That is the inherant issue at hand in the ruling. You have to count punchcard ballots differently that votes cast on the newer machines. So that is where the implication of the precedent in Bush v. Gore orginated from. Because of the differing standards; hanging chads, preganent chads, etc, and the newer methods of voting; touch screen and the like, those are different standards of counting. It was an interesting provision, and one in which the 9th was correct to rule.
Shaun

[boredguy8]

I maintain my "differing standards" mandate still stands. The same standard is applied across the board. In no state (or few) are there the same machines at every polling station. To expect this is insanity, as once one machine stops being produced, once even one breaks, you have to replace the whole fleet.

Furthermore, no one is being disenfranchised. Every California citizen of voting age has an equal opportunity to vote. All they need to do is follow the directions on the ballot. If the directions say, "make sure your chads are pushed all the way through", then that's what they need to do.

Finally, Gray Davis is the one in power and therefore has some say in the process of changing the voting methods. If he and others wanted the methods changed, they should have done it much sooner, before the 2002 election even. Imagine the uproar if Jeb Bush and his colleagues decided to never get rid of the punch card method in Florida and then each time the election came up, state that they could not have a fair election due to the fact that some Florida counties still use the punch-card method and therefore are disenfranchised, so Jeb Bush should just remain governor.

--Joey

[JChang]

Posted by Joey:
I maintain my "differing standards" mandate still stands. The same standard is applied across the board. In no state (or few) are there the same machines at every polling station. To expect this is insanity, as once one machine stops being produced, once even one breaks, you have to replace the whole fleet.

But see, that's exactly the mandate of Bush v. Gore. Legal scholars decried the decision because its particular interpretation of the equal protection clause was so broad as to apply to situations outside the hand count, to differing machines as well.

Finally, Gray Davis is the one in power and therefore has some say in the process of changing the voting methods. If he and others wanted the methods changed, they should have done it much sooner, before the 2002 election even. Imagine the uproar if Jeb Bush and his colleagues decided to never get rid of the punch card method in Florida and then each time the election came up, state that they could not have a fair election due to the fact that some Florida counties still use the punch-card method and therefore are disenfranchised, so Jeb Bush should just remain governor.

First, Davis has limited authority over the electoral process. California has a plural executive, meaning that the statewide offices are elected. Until January of this year, the Secretary of State, Bill Jones, was a Republican. In any event, the state was already acting to upgrade its voting process. Remember that Congress took a while to finally pass the money to give to states for electoral reform and that the machines were to be ready by what was expected to be the next election, March 2004.

[boredguy8]

Originally posted by James
Until January of this year, the Secretary of State, Bill Jones, was a Republican. In any event, the state was already acting to upgrade its voting process.
A fair point, James. I grant then, that it is not Davis' innate evil that is holding off election reform :grin

I still think the standards position is viable, especially in the context of Bush v. Gore. The standards clearly applied to whether or not all ballots had to be reconsidered (which would mean possibly discarding some 'ok' ballots that in fact showed signs of an overvote) or only those ballots which an undervote. Standards apply to a type of ballot, not to the process (or machines) themselves.

Also, remember it can't possibly mean what you say it means, or states would constantly need to replace fleets of voting machines when they wore out.

An interesting discussion, it will probably come up in Fresno :)

--Joey

[jatkins]

As long as you guys keep buying electricity from your northern neighbor, I don't really care who is running your state anymore. I would, but after all, it could just change every six months or so, what with the precedent of an entirely political recall and all.

[shea_d]

I also read that.

Even Davis wants the recall over with.

[JChang]

this just gets crazier and crazier...

Issa says vote no on the recall if mcclintock and schwarzenegger both stay in:

http://www.bayarea.com/mld/mercurynews/news/politics/6840760.htm

[patio11]

I think the spin in the article is on the money there. On the one hand, McClintlock is clearly the conservative favorite in the race. On the other hand, he has no chance of winning if Arnold stays in, and I don't think it gets much better if Arnie bows out. There is considerable pressure on McClintlock to bow out from Republican Party leaders and some conservative activists who really want, in the words of one derisive McCLintlock supporter, "to be able to put an R next to California". On the other hand, but for the screwy nature of this whole campaign he would be a better candidate than Arnold, so there is reluctance on the part of a lot of conservatives to let go of McClintlock, and a reluctance of a greater number to disparage him or force him out of the race.

I'm in a market that predicts future events (cool thing, you might like it, www.ideosphere.com). I started heavily discounting the recall after the spike in its price happened today. It just doesn't seem that likely.

Patrick McKenzie

[patio11]

Also, interestingly, the Bush camp is really anti-Arnold because they don't want a centrist-Republican in a position of power.

Arnold is only Republican on one issue. That isn't centrist, thats Democrat. Lieberman is twice the Republican that Arnold is. (If voting for Lieberman didn't help out his party thanks to parlimentary procedure, I'd have voted for him instead of any Republican Senator I've ever had. The only thing I've ever not liked about him is waffling on previous stances to not hurt Gore's chances.)

Bush doesn't want to see Arnie not because he is a centrist Republican, but because if there is still a D in the hot seat when the next election rolls around resentment might trickle up the ticket. I think its reasonable to assume that none of the candidates are capable of making a dent in CA's problems before the presidential election.

Patrick McKenzie

[JChang]

Interestingly, Bustamante is the chair of the Lieberman campaign in California, which gives you a sense of his politics...